the inadequacy of critical thinking

It bothers me when critical thinking is portrayed as the Holy Grail of thought and intellectual firepower- as if we could solve all our problems just by carefully evaluating everything we have in front of us. We've reached a stage where it's become more important, intellectual and safe to point out what seems wrong than at suggesting what might be better. Is it really any surprise that healthcare reform in the US is taking so long, even with the best and the brightest minds working at it? Critical thinking is incredibly important, but clearly it isn't enough.

Critical thinking is often regarded by established institutions as the highest form of thinking- our Government and civil service are no exceptions. Lee Kuan Yew is, after all, a great and profound critical thinker who has received immense acclaim for his accomplishments. Such a system of thought is brilliant protection against wild, crazy ideas that might threaten and disturb society with deviant ideas, isn't it? (No, I am not being sarcastic.) It was critical pragmatism that got our country where she is today, but it's the same thing that's making it smell a little bit too antiseptic and feel a little too uncomfortable, like a new sofa with the plastic covers left on.

It's easy to see the "safe" aspect of critical thinking. You can't go wrong when you dwell on the mistakes and problems of your opponent (unless your name is Chee Soon Juan- in which case you're pretty much screwed, because your criticism itself is subject to criticism- can you spell defamation lawsuit?) This is common in politics everywhere, including The Land Of The Free. Everything the other party proposes is nonsense, and vice versa. You always sound more "right" when you point out mistakes than when you actually suggest a solution that everybody knows can't possibly be perfect the first time round. This creates an atmosphere that isn't particularly credible, and actually ruins the political process by giving voters incentives to be justifiably indifferent and apathetic. (Tim Harford describes this phenomenon brilliantly in The Logic Of Life.)

If 95% of an idea is valid but 5% is more doubtful, it's easier and more impressive to focus on the failings of that five percent. If we did so to improve ideas by trying to improve and strengthen the weak links then then that would be laudable- but that's not what we do. We focus on the five percent to suggest, quite absurdly, that if this 5% is weak, the whole idea is worthless.

One of the main problems of critical thinking is it's attraction for those who, for some reason or another, choose not to be constructive or creative. If someone designs a simple chair, then that chair can be criticized as stark and boring. The chair may be compared to a prison chair or a hospital chair. It may be condemned as without style or character. If the person had designed a more elaborate chair, then that chair could be criticized as vulgar and fussy. All the critic needs to do is to choose a position different from that which is offered and then to attack what is offered as different from the critic's chosen position- hardly great thinking.

This is even worse if the critic doesn't understand what he or she is actually criticizing. It is quite easy to make a good show of profound criticism without understanding the matter at all, and this is the most frustrating thing to witness. You may visit http://www.stomp.com.sg to sample some of the warm fuzzy feeling in the atmosphere there.

Believe it or not, Stomp.com.sg and Socrates actually have something in common- both of them are guilty of critical overkill. (Of course, before I get slaughtered, I better emphasize that Socrates was actually a great thinker and a logical man who justified his claims- but you already know this.) Unfortunately, in most of his dialogues, there is no positive outcome at all. He simply points out what is wrong (a powerful skill, no doubt)- but when asked what was right if everything else was wrong, he would declare that that was not his business. Convenient, don't you think?

Now critical thinking is very valuable and has a very important part to play in society. It can be frightening and disturbing just how many people are oblivious to it, and critical thought is infinitely more valuable than ignorance. But critical thinking alone is not enough- and we shouldn't be content with ourselves intellectually just because we are capable of intelligent criticism.

Critical thinking is not quite as important as constructive and creative thinking, which have the potential to achieve much, much more. After all, you cannot design a better way forward simply through judgement- at most, you would be able to refine existing methods to a certain degree. Often we are most critical of ideas that are uncommon, unfamiliar and ambitious. But these are the ideas that go on to create the biggest waves- as Einstein aptly put it, "If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." We really ought to learn from hundreds of years of failed critics (people who argued that aircraft would have no military value, television was just a novelty, there would be no reason for anybody to want computers in their homes...) and be a lot less complacent, a lot less protective of status quo and a lot more willing to have our senses and sensibilities challenged. It's our civic duty!

I'm not saying in any way that we should do away with critical thinking- absolutely not. In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that it might be nearly impossible to achieve- because once you learn how to do it, it develops into a gut instinct, like a nagging voice inside your head that you can't shake off. Intrinsically and on it's own, that's not a bad thing. Thinking in general should be a holistic, thorough process, and spending too much (or too little) time on any aspect is regrettable. A simple analogy- if thinking in general was like driving, thinking critically could be likened utilizing the brakes, while thinking constructively or creatively could be likened to flooring the gas. It would be ridiculous to suggest driving without one or the other- but with the brakes engaged most of the time these days, is it any surprise that we don't seem to be going anywhere?